DETAILED ACTION/EXAMINER’S COMMENT
This Office action responds to the communication filed on 03/12/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Amendment Status
Applicant’s response filed on 03/12/2026 in reply to the non-final rejection mailed on 12/11/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. According, pending in this Office action are Claims 1-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “wherein the at least one section and the at least another section are formed entirely of metal materials” in lines 9-10 of Claim 1 would not create a semiconductor package device were all elements, such as the dies, compliant support structures, and electrical structures to be limited to being formed only of metal. Additionally, there is not support for the dies and compliant support structures to be formed of metal, only a paragraph stating that at least one section and the at least another section may be formed entirely of metal.
Paragraph 0069 of the specification: dies 12a & 12b are made of gallium nitride and silicon respectively.
Paragraph 0096 of the specification: dies 42a, 42b, & 42c are made of silicon, gallium arsenide, and silicon germanium.
Paragraph 0134 of the specification: the complaint support structures 16 & 46 are made of flexible materials such as hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) material, polymer based materials, and other flexible materials of the like.
The materials of the elements listed are not metal, and thus the limitation would not make sense as to how one skilled in the art would arrive at the instant invention, a semiconductor package, only using metal materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 2, & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (US 20210050300).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin (see, e.g., fig. 41a) shows a semiconductor package, comprising:
at least one section (see, e.g., annotated figure 41a) having
at least one die 411 (see, e.g., para.0580)
and at least one electrical structure 27 & 34 (see, e.g., para.0679) operably engaged directly with the at least one die;
and at least another section (see, e.g., annotated figure 41a) having
at least another die 326 (see, e.g., para.0719)
and at least another electrical structure 27, 34, & 158 (see, e.g., annotated figure 41a, para.0719) operably engaged directly with the at least another die;
wherein the at least one section and the at least another section directly engaged with one another via wafer bonding of the at least one electrical structure and the at least another electrical structure (see, e.g., para.0730);
Lin (see, e.g., para.0064) states the at least one section and the at least another section can be directly engaged through their respective electrical structures in wafer format. Although the electrical structure themselves are not wafers, the at least one section and the at least another section are considered wafers, and thus the electrical structures would be considered directly engaged with one another via wafer bonding.
Regarding the limitation “directly engaged with one another via wafer bonding of the at least one electrical structure and the at least another electrical structure” of Lin, note that a “product-by-process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which make it clear that it is the final product per se which must determine in a “product-by-process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product-by-process” claim or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26, USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir 1935).
NOTE that the applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
In reference to the claimed process step: “directly engaged with one another via wafer bonding of the at least one electrical structure and the at least another electrical structure” the wafers, implied in the process of “wafer bonding,” are not claimed by the Applicant in Claim 1’s limitations. Therefore the claimed process step is considered an intermediate method step that does not affect the structure of the final device.
Regarding Claim 2, Lin (see, e.g., annotated figure 41a) shows the semiconductor package of claim 1,
wherein the at least one section comprises:
at least one compliant support structure 92 (see, e.g., para.0689, para.0736) operably engaged with the at least one die and the at least one electrical structure;
wherein the at least one die and the at least one electrical structure are encased by the at least one compliant support structure (see, e.g., fig. 41a).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin (see, e.g., annotated figure 41a) shows the semiconductor package of claim 2,
wherein the at least another section comprises:
at least another compliant support structure 92 (see, e.g., para.0689, para.0736) operably engaged with the at least another die and the at least another electrical structure;
wherein the at least another die and the at least another electrical structure are encased by the at least another compliant support structure (see, e.g., 41a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20210050300) in view of Yu (US 20200402920).
Regarding Claim 3, Lin (see, e.g., fig. 41a, para.0689, para.0736) shows the semiconductor package of claim 2,
wherein the at least one compliant support structure further includes a stochastic structure or a non-stochastic structure.
Lin, however, fails to show
wherein the at least one compliant support structure further includes a stochastic structure.
Yu (see ,e.g., fig. 4, para.0041), in a similar device to Lin, states the at least one compliant support structure including an open cell foam structure, otherwise known as a stochastic structure, would abate warpage of the die by encapsulating said die during fabrication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the at least one compliant support structure including an open cell foam structure of Yu, in the device of Lin, to abate warpage of the die during fabrication.
Regarding Claim 5, Lin (see, e.g., fig. 41a, para.0689, para.0736) shows the semiconductor package of claim 4,
wherein the at least another compliant support structure further includes a stochastic structure or a non-stochastic structure.
Lin, however, fails to show
wherein the at least another compliant support structure further includes a stochastic structure.
Yu (see ,e.g., fig. 4, para.0041), in a similar device to Lin, states the at least another compliant support structure including an open cell foam structure, otherwise known as a stochastic structure, would abate warpage of the die by encapsulating said die during fabrication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the at least another compliant support structure including an open cell foam structure of Yu, in the device of Lin, to abate warpage of the die during fabrication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the objections to the specification and the objections to claims 2, 3, & 5, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification and the objections to claims 2, 3, & 5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), the rejections of claims 1, 2, & 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 3 & 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), while Examiner agrees the support for the claim limitation “wherein the at least one section and the at least another section are formed entirely of metal materials” is shown in Applicant’s specification, Examiner intended to reject under 112 (b).
The current claim language “wherein the at least one section and the at least another section are formed entirely of metal materials” would limit the other elements of the at least one section and the at least another section to be formed of only metal. Were the corresponding dies, electrical structures, and the compliant support structures all to be formed of metal, a semiconductor package would not be created. Effectively, the instant invention would be a large metal electrode. Additionally, there are no paragraphs in the specification that detail how the dies and the compliant support structures would be formed of metal.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, & 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102 the product-by-process rejection stands. Although Examiner recognizes the intent of the limitation is to achieve “direct bonding of the electrical structures” the current claim language does not necessitate direct physical contact between the electrical structures. Lin (see, e.g., fig. 41a, para.0726) does show a form of wafer bonding through bumps/pillars 570 that directly engage the at least one section and the at least another section. Kalvesten (see, e.g., figs. 1-2, para.0064-0068) in a similar device to Lin, shows using bumps/pillars for wafer bonding is a known process. The rejection of Claim 1 stands. Therefore, by dependence on claim 1, dependent claims 2 & 4 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and dependent claims 3 & 5 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; pertinent prior art(s) and most relevant portion(s) is provided: Kalvesten (US 20050124159).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-5855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on 571-272-1657. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/SAMUEL PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights